Torah Study Chukat 5785

Bamidbar 19:1-22:1, Shoftim 11:1-33, Yochanan 2:1-12

Torah Portion Bamidbar/Numbers 19:1-22:1

Numbers 19:2 ““This is the regulation from the Torah which Adonai has commanded. Tell the people of Isra’el to bring you a young red female cow without fault or defect and which has never borne a yoke.”

1.We read at the end of this verse “… which has never borne a yoke.” Besides the obvious meaning what is a more spiritual or deeper understanding we can learn from this phrase?#1

a. Never in the service of idols

b. never intended for service to idols

c. now consider the times in which Yisrael was ordered to slay all the livestock in a region. Pagan/gentile cultures designated animals for sacrifice to their idols from birth. It was impossible for the common man to determine what was not set aside for pagan idolatry.

RASHI This is the ritual law. Since the Accuser and the other nations of the world taunt Israel on account of this commandment—“What in the world is this?”—it is described not merely as a “ritual” but as a “law.” “It is a decree of Mine and you are forbidden to question it.” Instruct the Israelite people to bring you a red cow. They are to bring it to you, Moses, personally, so that it will be known forever after as “the cow that Moses prepared in the wilderness.” Without blemish. Rather, “a cow of unblemished red.” If there were two black hairs on it, that disqualified it. RASHBAM This is the ritual law. The ritual under discussion is that beginning in v. 14, the proper ritual for cleansing “when a person dies in a tent.” The law for that ritual is that the Lord commanded Moses to prepare a red cow with which to cleanse anyone who touches the corpse, carries it, or finds himself under the same roof with it. IBN EZRA This is the ritual law. This passage too was said in the wilderness of Sinai, when God said, “Instruct the Israelites to remove from camp … anyone defiled by a corpse” (5:2); remember that we have already encountered “some men who were unclean by reason of a corpse and could not offer the passover sacrifice” (9:6). It is given here, following ch. 18, because it is another aspect of the priestly ritual. A red cow. It must therefore be fully grown, not a calf. Saadia says that the “waters of lustration” (v. 9) described here (which make an unclean person clean, but make the clean priest who prepares them unclean) are like honey, which is dangerous to one who suffers an excess of red bile but beneficial to one who suffers an excess of phlegm. But there is no need for this sort of pseudomedical explanation. NAHMANIDES This is the ritual law. See Rashi’s comment, which is taken from rabbinic literature. The reason the other nations heap scorn on Israel about this more than they do about any of the other sacrifices of expiation or of purification (e.g., for a woman who has given birth) is because the animal is slaughtered outside the sacred enclosure. It therefore appears to them to have been offered “in the open … to the goat-demons” (Lev. 17:5, 7). But the truth is that it is meant to transfer the spirit of uncleanness outside the encampment—so even though it is burned in the open, it is the same as the “pleasing odor” of sacrifice being offered. As far as uncleanness resulting from contact with a corpse—death being the result of the incident with the serpent in Genesis 3—those who die by a kiss should certainly not convey uncleanness. As the Sages have said, “The righteous do not convey uncleanness.” That is why our text labels the “red cow” procedure “something derived from the Torah” (as our phrase should really be translated)—that is, the Oral Law. That explains why it is a cow rather than a bull, and it is red to indicate the divine aspect of justice. Eleazar (as deputy High Priest) was put in charge of this procedure, but (as we learn from v. 3) the animal can be slaughtered even by a non-priest. The deputy, however, must watch as it is done and make sure he is intent on fulfilling this commandment, to prevent any misapprehension on the part of those who perform it (along the lines of what I have said about Rashi’s remark concerning the Accuser and the other nations). (On this, see further my comment to Lev. 16:8.) This chapter completes the rules for priests, but it is included here after the priestly gifts of ch. 18 (rather than in Leviticus) to emphasize that the Israelites require the services of a priest for their ritual purification. That the Lord has commanded. The Lord here refers to Himself as “the Lord” (in third person), as in “Then He said to Moses, ‘Come up to the Lord’ ” (Exod. 24:1). Or perhaps we are supposed to understand this verse as if the words “Speak to the Israelite people” (see OJPS) came first, and Moses is saying to them what “the Lord has commanded.” Instruct the Israelite people. “Instruct” is in the singular; Moses is the primary recipient of this command. To bring you a red cow. That is, it is to be done right now in the wilderness. V. 10 will establish this procedure as a “permanent law.” For a similar case, see Exod. 27:20–21, “You shall further instruct the Israelites to bring you clear oil of beaten olives for lighting … It shall be a due from the Israelites for all time, throughout the ages.” ADDITIONAL COMMENTS This is the ritual law. The phrase also occurs in 31:21, and nowhere else in the Bible (Masorah). Rather, “a law of Torah”—an educational law (Bekhor Shor). This cow that you have prepared—that is the way it should be prepared for all time (Abarbanel). That the Lord has commanded. In 8:7, “This is what you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle on them water of purification” (Sforno). Instruct the Israelite people to bring you a red cow without blemish. This elaborate procedure for cleansing oneself from contact with the dead was to prevent the Israelites from lingering with their dead for too long, from consulting with mediums to seek information from the dead, and from treating the dead with disrespect by using their bodies like objects, e.g., turning their skin into leather (Bekhor Shor). Since the verse goes on to say, “in which there is no defect,” “without blemish” must refer to the cow’s redness (Gersonides). It is a cow rather than a bull because Israel is so identified in Hosea 4:16: “Israel has balked like a stubborn cow.” But this cow will be not “stubborn” but “without blemish” (Abarbanel). On which no yoke has been laid. This alludes to the yoke of service to other gods (Abarbanel). Michael Carasik, ed., Numbers: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, First edition, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2011), Nu 19:2.

2.What is the significance of the color red in Judaism? #2

a. red is associated with the element of Gevura.

b. Gevura means restrictive power, and is associated with justice, kindness and life

c. red string on the left hand

Since the infinite and unlimited chesed of G‑d is intended for finite creatures unable to absorb infinite kindness and yet remain in physical existence, the attribute of chesed is controlled and limited by the aspect of gevura. Gevura means restrictive power, the power to limit and conceal the Infinite Light so that each creature can receive according to its capacity. Thus, gevura is also an aspect of G‑d's kindness, for if the outpouring of infinite kindness were to remain unrestricted, finite creatures would become instantly nullified in the infinite revelation of divine love. Therefore the sefira of gevura is the manifestation of G‑d's power to restrict and conceal the light so that His creatures can receive His loving-kindness, each according to its capacity.

On the Second day of Creation, separation of the higher waters from the lower waters was introduced. In the Torah, this is called the firmament (rakia). In Kabbala, water signifies kindness, chesed. The separation of the waters means that the infinite chesed of G‑d, referred to as "the higher waters", is separated from "the lower waters", signifying finite chesed, which has the ability to permeate the lower worlds.

https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380796/jewish/Chesed-Gevura-Tiferet.htm

Numbers 19:13 “Anyone who touches a corpse, no matter whose dead body it is, and does not purify himself has defiled the tabernacle of Adonai. That person will be cut off from Isra’el, because the water for purification was not sprinkled on him. He will be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him.”

3.How do you understand this verse?#3

a. A person that has come in contact with a enough of a human corpse that would be capable of living, including blood, bone, or flesh be it fresh or ancient, is unclean and cannot enter in to the tabernacle/temple of HaShem. Doing so anyways will is punishable by separation from Israel, i.e. from Olam Haba

b. everyone living today is considered unclean to this.

c. all land outside of Yisrael is considered dead land as it is land unto idols anyone who enters from outside the land of Yisrael even Jews is considered unclean. They would need to immerse in a mikvah and if they went to the temple would need to be sprinkled with the waters of the red hefer.

56. The Impurity of a Corpse – Tumas Mes

If a person (or utensil) touches a grave or a corpse or a severed limb or moves it or comes directly above or below it or is under the same roof with it he becomes impure for seven days, as it says “One who touches the corpse of any human being shall be impure seven days… if a man dies in a tent anyone who comes into the tent and everything that is in the tent shall be impure seven days”.1 Utensils (other than earthenware) that touch a person who has been in contact with a corpse, and persons who touch such utensils, are impure for seven days, as it says “[Anyone who touched a corpse…] you shall wash your clothes on the seventh day and become pure”2; but a person who touches such a person is only impure for one day, as it says “[And anything that the impure person touches becomes impure] and the person who touches [him] becomes impure until evening”.3 Utensils that have been in contact with a corpse are treated like the corpse itself as regards touching, as it says “[And anyone who touches on the field] one killed by the sword or a corpse [or a human bone or a grave shall be impure seven days]”4 — the sword is like the one killed by it. Rabbinically, one who goes out of the land of Israel also becomes impure.

https://torah.org/learning/halacha-overview-chapter56/

RASHI A corpse, the body of a person who has died. That is, this applies only to a human corpse. The uncleanness resulting from an animal carcass does not require sprinkling. Another reading: since the word translated “body” can also mean “life,” it does not refer only to a complete corpse, but even to as much of a body as a quarter of a log of blood, the minimum amount needed to preserve life. Defiles the Lord’s Tabernacle. If he enters the inner court, even after bathing, without having the water of lustration dashed on him on the third day and on the seventh day. His uncleanness is still upon him. Even though he has ritually bathed. RASHBAM His uncleanness is still upon him. Even if he has immersed in a ritual bath. IBN EZRA The water of lustration. See my comment to 31:23. Was not dashed on him. “Water” is plural in Hebrew, and the verb is singular; but “water” is the correct subject here nevertheless. His uncleanness is still upon him. “Still” is correct, though the Hebrew word could mean “again.” But see “So long as the earth endures” (Gen. 8:22) for another example where the word refers to continuation rather than repetition. Michael Carasik, ed., Numbers: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, First edition, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2011), Nu 19:13.

Numbers 20:10–12 “But after Moshe and Aharon had assembled the community in front of the rock, he said to them, “Listen here, you rebels! Are we supposed to bring you water from this rock?” Then Moshe raised his hand and hit the rock twice with his staff. Water flowed out in abundance, and the community and their livestock drank. But Adonai said to Moshe and Aharon, “Because you did not trust in me, so as to cause me to be regarded as holy by the people of Isra’el, you will not bring this community into the land I have given them.””

4.Why does Moshe strike the rock?

a. he was told to the first time Exodus 17:6 “I will stand in front of you there on the rock in Horev. You are to strike the rock, and water will come out of it, so the people can drink.” Moshe did this in the sight of the leaders of Isra’el.”

5. What is the sin that Moshe and Aharon are guilty of?#4

a.not trusting in HaShem and to be cause to be regarded as holy by Benei Yisrael.

b.Moshe spoke Harshly to Yisrael and may have also claimed some of the credit for what HaShem was doing by saying we and meaning he and Aharon.

10. you rebels Hebrew ha-morim, from marah, “rebel,” a reminder that Israel had already been labeled benei meri, “rebels” (17:25); but see verse 24. we The fatal pronoun by which Moses ascribes the miracle to himself and to Aaron; see Excursus 50. 11. twice This is an indication of Moses’ anger, but it is not the cause of his sin. 12. trust Me Hebrew heʾemantem bi. A fitting and fair punishment: Just as Israel who did not yaʾaminu bi, “trust Me” (14:11), must die in the wilderness (14:23), so must Moses and Aaron. in the sight of the Israelite people Their sin was aggravated because it was witnessed by all of Israel, as recognized by the following midrash: But had not Moses previously said something that was worse than this? For he said: “Could enough flocks and herds be slaughtered to suffice for them? Or could all the fish in the sea be gathered for them to suffice for them?” (Num. 11:22). Faith surely was wanting there too, and to a greater degree than in the present instance. Why then did He not make the decree against him on that occasion? Let me illustrate. To what may this be compared? To the case of a king who had a friend. Now this friend displayed arrogance toward the king privately, using harsh words. The king, however, did not lose his temper with him. After a time he rose, and displayed his arrogance in the presence of his legions, and the king passed sentence of death upon him. So also the Holy one, blessed be He, said to Moses: “The first offense that you committed was a private matter between you and Me. Now, however, that it is done in the presence of the public it is impossible to overlook it,” as it says “to affirm My sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people” (20:12). This midrash encapsulates a great truth. Moses’ previous doubts and even his disbelief (11:22) had been uttered in private, but here they were expressed in public, before the assembled throngs of Israel. therefore Hebrew lakhen, which introduces an oath made by God. This is because a declaration by God is equivalent to an oath. Deuteronomy (4:21) actually makes the oath explicit. you shall not lead this congregation Implied is that “this congregation” refers to the new generation, which is eligible to enter the land, an indication that this event takes place in the fortieth year. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 165–166.

Numbers 21:8–9 “and Adonai answered Moshe: “Make a poisonous snake and put it on a pole. When anyone who has been bitten sees it, he will live.” Moshe made a bronze snake and put it on the pole; if a snake had bitten someone, then, when he looked toward the bronze snake, he stayed alive.”

The word translated as serpent/snake used here is שָׂרָ֔ף sarap and is where we get the word Seraph. It is the same word used in Isaiah 6 and translated as Seraph there.

6. What ultimately happens to the Bronze שָׂרָ֔ף sarap? #5

a. destroyed by King Hezekiah because it was used as an Idol 2 Kings 18:4 “He removed the high places, smashed the standing-stones, cut down the asherah and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moshe had made; because in those days the people of Isra’el were making offerings to it, calling it N’chushtan.”

b. John 3:14 “Just as Moshe lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up;”

RASHI A standard. A “pole” (OJPS): “like a pole upon a mountain” (Isa. 30:17). Since it is easily visible, being so high, it is referred to by a word also used to mean “flag, ensign, standard.” If anyone who is bitten looks at it, he shall recover. Rather, “if he sees it” (compare OJPS). Even a dog bite or a donkey bite makes one gradually waste away. But a snake bite kills very rapidly. So someone who was bitten by a dog or a donkey only had to “see” the standard to recover. But if he was bitten by a snake, he had to “look” deliberately at it (v. 9). Our Sages, however, said, “Can a snake deal death or give life? But if the Jews looked upward and subordinated their hearts to their Father in heaven, they would be cured; if not, they would putrefy.” RASHBAM If anyone who is bitten looks at it. Thereby looking up, toward heaven. IBN EZRA Make a seraph figure. The Hebrew does not say “figure” (compare OJPS); NJPS has derived this from what Moses actually does in v. 9. Mount it on a standard. So that it will be high enough up that everyone can see it. Many people have been confused by this; they think this figure was to somehow channel the power of the upper spheres. God forbid! The whole thing was done to begin with by God’s command. It is not ours to determine why the figure was made in the likeness of a snake. If someone thinks differently, let him show us the kind of wood that one can throw into salt water to make it drinkable (as Moses did in Exod. 15:25). Not even honey would do that except through a miracle! The same is true with applying a cake of figs to a rash (see 2 Kings 20:7). Figs do not cure a rash; this is not natural, but supernatural. The truth is that the mind of the One on high is far beyond our meager powers to understand. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Make a seraph figure and mount it on a standard. I think God wanted this incident to have a lasting impact, to warn the people against harmful speech; remember that (according to 2 Kings 18:4) this figure was still around in the time of Hezekiah, who “broke into pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made” (Gersonides). RASHI A copper serpent. Moses had not been instructed to make it out of copper. But he thought, “God calls the serpent naḥash; I’ll make this one out of neḥoshet, copper, as a kind of wordplay.” NAHMANIDES Moses made a copper serpent. I do not understand Rashi’s comment (which is drawn from a midrash). The Holy One did not tell Moses to make a “serpent” but “a seraph figure” (v. 8). The Sages meant that Moses was getting to the essence of what God said; a “seraph figure” is just a “fiery” kind of serpent (see OJPS to v. 8). But there appears to me to be a theological aspect involved in this matter. It is the Torah’s way that every event in it is a miracle within a miracle. It removes the damage by means of the damager, and cures the illness by means of its cause. The same happened (for example) when “the Lord showed him a piece of wood; he threw it into the water and the water became sweet” (Exod. 15:25), and when Elisha “went to the spring and threw salt into it” (2 Kings 2:21). Medically, it is well known that those bitten by poisonous animals are endangered further by seeing those animals or their likenesses, to the extent that if one bitten by a rabid dog looks into the water, he will see an image of the dog and die. (See B. Yoma 84a and the medical books.) Physicians will even avoid using the word “dog” (or whatever animal bit them) in their presence, lest they become so obsessed with it that it kills them. One of the miracles of nature that has been experimentally discovered is that if one collects in a glass vessel the urine of someone bitten by a rabid dog, he will see in the urine something that looks like tiny puppies. If you then pass the urine through a strip of cloth, you do not find any sign of them at all. But if you put it back in the glass vessel and let it sit there for an hour or so, you will clearly see the little puppies again. This is a genuine example of the power of the mind. Given all this, the Israelites who were bitten by serpents should not have looked at the image of a serpent, or indeed thought about serpents at all. Yet the Holy One commanded Moses to make them the image of a seraph serpent—exactly what was killing them to begin with. It is well known that such serpents have red eyes, wide mouths, and necks that are copper colored. Moses therefore found no way to fulfill this commandment without making the “seraph figure” out of copper. For if he had made it out of some other material, it would have resembled a serpent but not a seraph serpent. With regard to the wordplay, as I said before, even encountering the mere name of the animal is dangerous in these cases. But again, in this case the Holy One commanded that the cure be worked precisely through both the image and the name that would have killed them in the ordinary course of nature—to demonstrate that it is God who “deals death and gives life” (1 Sam. 2:6). Michael Carasik, ed., Numbers: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, First edition, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2011), Nu 21:9.

Haftarah Portion Shoftim/Judges 11:1-33

In the haftarah, Jephthah refers to the historical events described in the parashah. He cites Moses’ negotiations in his own diplomatic mission. Furthermore, both Moses and Jephthah seek to avoid hostilities by means of diplomacy. Both passages deal with the issue of land rights.

I. Themes

1. Before engaging in conflict, a diplomatic solution may offer an opportunity for peaceful resolution; when this fails, however, a military solution is acceptable.

2. In relationships, history matters—both in personal and international spheres. On the other hand, a claim loses legitimacy when one waits too long to advance it.

Laura Suzanne Lieber, Study Guide to the JPS Bible Commentary: Haftarot, ed. Janet L. Liss and David E. S. Stein, First edition, JPS Tanakh Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 63.

Judges 11:9 “Yiftach answered them, “If you bring me back home to fight the army of ‘Amon, and Adonai defeats them for me, I will be your head.””

Judges 11:12 “Yiftach sent messengers to the king of the people of ‘Amon to say, “What’s your problem with us? Why are you invading our territory?””

7. Based on how Yiftach/Jephthah replies to first the Leaders of Gilead and later the King of Amon, what could be said of him?

a. he shows wisdom and knowledge, he is not a rash individual.

Judges 11:29–31 “Then the spirit of Adonai came upon Yiftach; and he passed through Gil‘ad and M’nasheh, on through Mitzpeh of Gil‘ad, and from there over to the people of ‘Amon. Yiftach made a vow to Adonai: “If you will hand the people of ‘Amon over to me, then whatever comes out the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the people of ‘Amon will belong to Adonai; I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.””

8. How could Yiftach/Jephthah make a short sighted or hasty vow with the Spirit of Adonai upon him?#6

a. spirit of Adonai provides inspiration and does not control the individual.

b. spirit of Adonai will not keep a person from sin.

c. one still has to exercise reason, logic and restraint/gevura while the Spirit of Adonai is upon them.

Yiftaḥ made an unreasonable request, as it is stated: “It will be, that whatever emerges from the doors of my house […I will offer it up as a burnt offering]” (Judges 11:31). The Holy One blessed be He said: Had a camel, a donkey, or a dog emerged, would you have presented it as a burnt offering? The Holy One blessed be He responded to him unfavorably and arranged for his daughter [to emerge] for him. “It was upon his seeing her that he rent his garments” (Judges 11:35) – he could have had his vow dissolved and gone to Pinḥas. He said: I am a king; shall I go to Pinḥas? Pinḥas said: I am the High Priest and the son of a High Priest; shall I go to this ignoramus? In the meanwhile, that miserable one died, and both of them were liable for her blood. Pinḥas, the Divine Spirit left him. That is what is written: “Pinḥas son of Elazar had been the chief official over them in the past; the Lord was with him” (I Chronicles 9:20). Yiftaḥ’s limbs fell off one by one and were buried. That is what is written: “He was buried in the cities of Gilead” (Judges 12:7). It is not written, “In the city of Gilead,” but rather, “in the cities [of Gilead].” It teaches that his limbs fell off one by one, and he was buried in many places. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan: Reish Lakish said: He was obligated to give money and to sacrifice upon the altar. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He was not obligated to give money, as we learned: An item that is fit to be sacrificed atop the altar, shall be sacrificed; an item that is not fit to be sacrificed atop the altar, shall not be sacrificed atop the altar. Moreover, anyone who vows and fulfills his vow, merits to pay his vow in Jerusalem. That is what is written: “I will pay my vows to the Lord” (Psalms 116:18). Where? “In the courtyards of the house of the Lord, in your midst, Jerusalem. Halleluya” (Psalms 116:19), and it says: “Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good, for His kindness is forever” (Psalms 118:1).

https://www.sefaria.org/Vayikra_Rabbah.37.4?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

9. Does Yiftach/Jephthah literally sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering? #7

a. no but it was a foolish vow

b. she is to live as a virgin her entire life probably sequestered at the temple or in Jerusalem or in the mountains at a place for women only to attend, his lineage ends. This indicates she may be about 12 - 13 years old.

c. cannot make a vow to sin

30–31. vow to the Lord This vow constitutes a conditional votary offering “to the Lord.” The technical language is precisely similar to Israel’s (national) vow at the onset of its battle with the king of Arad during the desert wandering (Num. 21:2–3). R. David Kimḥi (in his father’s name) softens the harsh vow by distinguishing between a sanctification and an offering to the Lord. The first would apply if the “object” for sacrifice was ritually inappropriate; the second, if conditions proved proper. On this view, Jephthah’s daughter was not sacrificed, but secluded in solitary confinement. This solution is a tendentious reading of verse 39 (NJPS properly distinguishes between the father’s fulfillment of his vow and the daughter’s virginal condition: “and he did to her as he had vowed. She had never known a man”). For the idiom ve-haʿalitihu ʿolah (“shall be offered by me as a burnt offering”), cf. ve-haʿalehu … le-ʿolah (Gen. 22:2). The old Targum takes this language literally and condemns Jephthah’s deed. Compare the midrashic rejection of the false vow in Leviticus Rabbah 37:4 and Genesis Rabbah 60:3 (especially the judgment of R. Yoḥanan). Pseudo-Philo follows this tradition and has God add that Israel will be delivered because of its prayers—not because of Jephthah (Biblica Antiquities 39:11). Michael A. Fishbane, Haftarot, The JPS Bible Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 243.

Basorah/Gospel Portion Yochanan/John 2:1-12

John 2:3–4 “The wine ran out, and Yeshua’s mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” Yeshua replied, “Mother, why should that concern me?—or you? My time hasn’t come yet.””

10. What might be the reason Yeshua responds to his mother Mariam in the manner he does of asking why should they be concerned about the wine?

a. the state of quantity of the wine at the wedding does not involve either of them.

b. this is not their burden or task to tend to they are guests

11. Why does Yeshua acquiesce to his mother Mariam’s inference that he do something about the wine? #8

a. he is a good Jew he honor’s his father and mother.

Mother, why should that concern me?—or you? Literally, “What to me and to you, woman?” This translates into Greek a Hebrew idiom found a number of times in the Tanakh, and we are thereby reminded of the Hebraic roots necessary to proper understanding of the New Testament. The meaning of this idiom is flexible; renderings include: “What do we have in common?” “Why do you involve me?” “You must not tell me what to do,” “Why turn to me?” “Your concern is not mine.” Greek gunê means “woman,” but saying “Gunê!” to a woman in Greek is not nearly as cold an address as “Woman!” in English; this is why I have rendered it “Mother.” Nevertheless Yeshua’s answer, in toto, no matter how translated, puts distance between him and his mother Miryam. Why does he do this? Is he disobeying the commandment to honor his father and mother (as opponents of the Gospel suppose)? The answer comes with the following remark, My time (literally, “my hour”) hasn’t come yet. Yochanan’s Gospel often has Yeshua speaking about his time (7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1), and each occasion has a reason. Here the reason is that Yeshua’s mother had been informed, even before he was born, that he was meant for greatness (Lk 1:35, 43); she had heard others prophesy about him (Lk 2:25–38); she had observed his development (Lk 2:40, 51), although not always with understanding (Lk 2:41–50); and she had known that future generations would bless her (Lk 1:48). Yeshua’s comment is meant to aid her in the transition from seeing him as her child to seeing him as her Lord, to keep her from undue pride, and to indicate that he as Lord sovereignly determines when he will intervene in human affairs—he does not perform miracles on demand merely to impress his friends, or even to give naches (a Yiddish word that means “the kind of joy a mother feels”) to his mother. See v. 11&N on the purpose of his miracle. Actually he both honored and cared for his mother: in the agony of being executed he entrusted his mother to the talmid whom he especially loved (19:25–27). And in the end she did come to regard him as Lord, for she was present and praying with the other talmidim in the upstairs room after his resurrection (Ac 1:14). From Miryam’s response, Do whatever he tells you, it is evident that she was neither dissatisfied nor put off by her son but received his communication in the right spirit. Moreover, Yeshua did not ignore the problem to which she had called attention but granted far more than she asked or imagined (Ep 3:20). Finally, v. 12, conveniently ignored by those who seek to prove there was a rift between Yeshua and his family (compare Mt 12:48–50&N), says that he left with “his mother and brothers.” David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary : A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament, electronic ed. (Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996), Jn 2:4.

Bonus question: Does Mariam’s expectation of Yeshua’s action to solve the issue of wine running out infer that he has done something like this before?